Cleveland Clinic Doctor Goes Full Anti-Vaccine

In a striking display of anti-science fear-mongering, the Cleveland Clinic's Daniel Neides, M.D., medical director and chief operating officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute, regurgitated anti-vaccine talking points on a local news site. Right in the middle of flu season, a medical director board-certified in family medicine is using the Cleveland Clinic platform to harmfully spread misinformation about a vaccine that can reduce people’s risk of a life-threatening illness. By the end of his rant, this family doctor has employed a half dozen anti-vaccine arguments that dangerously misinform readers and undermine the credibility of the Cleveland Clinic.

Cleveland Clinic spokeswoman Eileen Sheil wrote in an email, "Cleveland Clinic fully supports vaccinations to protect patients and our employees. The statements made by our physician do not reflect the position of Cleveland Clinic."* This statement echoes a tweet by Cleveland Clinic earlier this evening: "We fully support vaccines to protect patients & employees. Statements made by our physician do not reflect the position of Cleveland Clinic." However, the article, published in a local outlet, uses the Clinic logo. [ETA 1/8/17: Cleveland Clinic has provided an updated statement and an apology and retraction from Neides. See both at the bottom of the article.]

Neides starts by telling his readers he “took the advice of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—the government—and received a flu shot.” But he immediately clarifies that he chose to get the “preservative-free vaccine, thinking I did not want any thimerasol [sic] (i.e. mercury) that the ‘regular’ flu vaccine contains.” First, there is no “regular” flu vaccine. The flu vaccine is administered in single doses, which does not require a preservative since the dose is disposed of after it’s given, or from a multi-dose vial, which requires use of a preservative to prevent the introduction of bacteria or fungus to the vial between shots.

Neides is correct that thimerosal is the preservative used in these multi-dose vials—but he refers to it as mercury, then asking, “Why would any of us want to be injected with mercury if it can potentially cause harm?” Except, “mercury” is an element that can come as a component in different molecules. The mercury found in certain fish, such as shark, tuna and king mackerel, is organic methylmercury, a known neurotoxin that accumulates in the body and can cause harm if too much is consumed. (Though it’s worth noting that long-term studies from the Seychelles suggest a very high consumption of fish is needed to cause harm.)

A statue representing a child receiving a injection of vaccine is seen at the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters on September 5, 2014 in Geneva. (FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images)

Exactly how safe is a flu shot with thimerosal? So safe that I demanded my local pharmacy give me one while I was pregnant. I wouldn’t dream of getting any substance injected into myself while pregnant that I wasn’t certain was safe for me and my developing fetus (now a healthy 2-year-old).

But Neides then goes a step further, complaining that even the preservative-free flu shot contains—horrors!—formaldehyde. He’s right—it does—and it’s a good thing because it’s formaldehyde that inactivates the flu virus in the vaccine so that it can’t infect and harm you. Neides calls formaldehyde a “preservative” in his post, but formaldehyde isn’t used as a preservative in vaccines—it prevents the flu virus contained in the flu vaccine from being able to replicate in the body. If Neides wants his flu vaccine without formaldehyde, he might as well inject himself with the flu virus and spend two weeks with a fever, chills and body aches, hoping he doesn’t end up hospitalized.

And contrary to what Neides implies, the flu vaccine does not give someone the flu or any other infection. As I’ve written before, some people experience unpleasant but mild side effects. What Neides describes—“in bed feeling miserable and missed two days of work with a terrible cough and body aches”—does sound like an infection. And because it occurred 12 hours after the shot, it was almost certainly a virus picked up well before he got the vaccine since the influenza virus takes longer to incubate before symptoms appear, something a board-certified family medicine doctor should know.

Neides then goes on to indulge in the kind of chemophobia typically seen on anti-science blogs and discredited “natural health news” sites. He calls our environment a “toxic soup” and rants about “over 80,000 chemicals used in various industries country-wide.” Frankly, I’m grateful for all those chemicals since oxygen (O2), water (H2O), caffeine (C8H10N4O2) and chocolate (C7H8N4O2) are among my favorite substances. I’m fond of a bit of sugar (C12H22O11) now and then, and I tend to prefer meals seasoned with an appropriately moderate amount of salt (NaCl).

The food I feed my children and the air I breathe are chock-full of chemicals—if they weren’t, we’d be dead. Rather, we would cease to exist since we are ourselves nothing but walking, talking bags of chemicals. The “20 or 30 ingredients” that Neides complains can’t be pronounced are naturally occurring in bananas and those antioxidant-filled blueberries, too. Not being able to pronounce something doesn’t make it bad or unhealthy; it just makes the person complaining look ignorant. Even certain ingredients often maligned in personal care products are not harmful, as people suspect. (That said, the cosmetics industry has long needed better regulation for use of compounds that can have adverse health effects.)

Neides also calls to mind the wise words of Inigo Montoya in his repetitive use of the word “toxin,” which actually refers to “organic poison made by plants and animals.” I suspect those aren’t the “chemicals” Neides is thinking of. Even so, he raises the specter of “chronic diseases” caused by “toxins” in the environment. Toxic chemicals in the environment such as car exhaust and tobacco smoke can indeed contribute to heart disease, but it’s important to be accurate and precise in trying to warn people about dangers in the environment. Ranting about “toxins” causing ADHD or diabetes lacks evidence and only causes unnecessary fear and stress.

Fortunately, Neides does appear to have a basic understanding of how biology works: he notes, correctly, that the best detoxification methods are our own organs, the liver and kidneys, so it’s a small comfort that he doesn’t promote the pseudoscience of “detoxing” the body.

But it’s at the end that Neides promotes his most harmful anti-vaccine nonsense, pulling out page after page from anti-vaccine books. “Does the vaccine burden—as has been debated for years—cause autism?” he asks. “I don't know and will not debate that here,” he responds—except it doesn’t matter if he “knows.” Science has irrefutably answered that question with a resounding no, and dozens of studies confirm it. Neides then invokes all-caps (we all know how well all-caps indicate evidence-based rational thought) to say he “will stand up and scream that newborns without intact immune systems and detoxification systems are being over-burdened with PRESERVATIVES AND ADJUVANTS IN THE VACCINES.” The evidence refutes his concern.

Why does Neides not recall fellow students with IEPs for ADHD or autism? Because special education has improved since he was in grade school, as have diagnostics and identification of those who have developmental conditions or other disabilities. The “increase” in autism is actually a result of changes in diagnostic criteria and better identification of those with autism spectrum disorders (which, by the way, are a developmental disability, not a "disease").

It is difficult to overstate the harm Neides is causing with this article full of misinformation. It's deeply concerning that a large medical institution such as the Cleveland Clinic has a doctor in its ranks promoting pseudoscience. I hope that the Cleveland Clinic takes strong action in response to one of their physicians using their platform to mislead patients.

ETA: Cleveland Clinic provide the following updated statement Sunday morning: "Cleveland Clinic is fully committed to evidence-based medicine. Harmful myths and untruths about vaccinations have been scientifically debunked in rigorous ways. We completely support vaccinations to protect people, especially children who are particularly vulnerable. Our physician published his statement without authorization from Cleveland Clinic. His views do not reflect the position of Cleveland Clinic and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken."

In addition, Neides provided a statement: "I apologize and regret publishing a blog that has caused so much concern and confusion for the public and medical community. I fully support vaccinations and my concern was meant to be positive around the safety of them."

I am grateful that Cleveland Clinic is taking this situation seriously. While Neides' statement is also a step in the right direction, I remain concerned about his interaction with patients. His initial statements reflect an extensive and deep inculcation of anti-vaccine views and talking points, not the kind of offhand remarks that come from a person misspeaking or inadvertently misrepresenting a minor point. The attitudes he expressed form over time, run deep and are not easily dismissed or rejected by someone who believes them. A single apology and disavowal does not undo that damage. I remain unconvinced that Neides has the confidence in vaccines' safety and effectiveness that should be expected of a medical professional.

*This article originally read: "I have reached out to Cleveland Clinic for comment—I am hoping they were unaware of this post and will be removing it—but since it is a weekend, I have not yet heard back." It has since been updated.

Correction: This post previously incorrectly identified the piece as being published at the Clinic website. It is actually published on a local news site using the Clinic logo. This article also initially incorrectly identified methylmercury as inorganic. In fact, its molecular formula,CH3Hg+, shows that it contains carbon and that it is therefore organic. Thanks to a reader for catching the error.

I am a freelance science and multimedia journalist who specializes in reporting on vaccines, pediatric and maternal health, parenting, public health, mental health, medical research, and the social sciences. My work has appeared in The New York Times, NPR, Scientific Americ...